5 ms·

Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practi

Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.

anonsivalley652 7y ago
After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the DMCA. 15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.
- peteradio 7y ago
  "knowingly" I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Are you a lawyer, or just have a keyboard warrior merit badge?
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack or respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Those things don't help. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kevingadd 7y ago
  YouTube content ID is not the DMCA, so you have no recourse. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en This is why bad actors are able to liberally steal ad revenue for millions of videos without being punished, often claiming content they don't even own.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    You have recourse - dispute the content ID claim and either they must abandon the claim or convert it to DMCA, which then gives you all the rights you have under DMCA.
  - coleca 7y ago
    From the video this case wasn't Content ID, it was manually flagged.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      That still means it went through the content ID system. The UI flow if they manually file a DMCA is different. DMCA also does not reassign revenue, content ID does that.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  This isn't under the DMCA but still interesting: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2017/2556s15.pdf https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions... Tl;dr Amazon seller filed a false counterfeiting allegation against another seller. A jury found "$4,460 in compensatory damages" and awarded 150k on top of that in punitive, reduced by appeals court to 75k. Biggest award for false claim of IP infringement I'm aware of. Unfortunately it was in state court and not precedential. And with all the appeals it likely cost them more than 100k to litigate. I currently have a similar case ongoing, and I know of a few dozen other cases. See e.g: Argo Holdings, Inc. v. Youngblood Skin Care Products, LLC (0:19-cv-60487) ABG Prime Group v. Innovative Salon Products (2:17-cv-12280) (settled) Verbena Products LLC v. Sesderma USA LLC (1:19-cv-23778) Verbena Products LLC v. Suavecito, Inc. (1:19-cv-24001) Verbena Products LLC v. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc. (1:19-cv-23616) SZS Solutions, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (0:17-cv-61942) (settled)
- otakucode 7y ago
  Look into the case where a Christian film company fraudulently claimed a tons of videos on The Bible Reloaded YouTube channel. They went to court. They 'won'. Kinda. They ended up settling, but their case was as iron-clad and perfect as anyone could dream. They didn't include a single frame of the movie they were talking about in their video, didn't include a single nanosecond of audio from the film, but the company still filed a claim. But when they went into court, the company blamed the actual employee who filed the claims and for some reason the court just decided that the company can't be held responsible for the actions their employee took while doing the job they were hired to do. I would expect the same thing to happen in any similar case. They just throw the one person under the bus and move on.
kristofferR 7y ago
There is actually something creators can do about it. If you add your own copyrighted song to ContentID and add the song to your video, you can copyright claim your own video and prevent others from abusing ContentID to earn money on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo

Fraudulent abuse of copyright law is the name of the game on Youtube and there's nothing creators can do about. Fair Use is increasingly a myth in actual practice thanks to robo take down requests.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

After watching Leonard French go over the Sargon suit, I think there's a counter-claim to be filed that is supposed to provide some temporary relief to push back some draconian measures Youtube imposes that are required under the DMCA. 15 USC 512 (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Fraudulent DMCA takedowns needs some severe punishment cases with treble costs, damages and fees or better to send a message that this type of criminal-like behavior won't be tolerated.

peteradio 7y ago
"knowingly" I formally attest I did not knowingly commit fraud your honor.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  Are you a lawyer, or just have a keyboard warrior merit badge?
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't cross into personal attack or respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Those things don't help. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kevingadd 7y ago
YouTube content ID is not the DMCA, so you have no recourse. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en This is why bad actors are able to liberally steal ad revenue for millions of videos without being punished, often claiming content they don't even own.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  You have recourse - dispute the content ID claim and either they must abandon the claim or convert it to DMCA, which then gives you all the rights you have under DMCA.
- coleca 7y ago
  From the video this case wasn't Content ID, it was manually flagged.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    That still means it went through the content ID system. The UI flow if they manually file a DMCA is different. DMCA also does not reassign revenue, content ID does that.
ikeboy 7y ago
This isn't under the DMCA but still interesting: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2017/2556s15.pdf https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions... Tl;dr Amazon seller filed a false counterfeiting allegation against another seller. A jury found "$4,460 in compensatory damages" and awarded 150k on top of that in punitive, reduced by appeals court to 75k. Biggest award for false claim of IP infringement I'm aware of. Unfortunately it was in state court and not precedential. And with all the appeals it likely cost them more than 100k to litigate. I currently have a similar case ongoing, and I know of a few dozen other cases. See e.g: Argo Holdings, Inc. v. Youngblood Skin Care Products, LLC (0:19-cv-60487) ABG Prime Group v. Innovative Salon Products (2:17-cv-12280) (settled) Verbena Products LLC v. Sesderma USA LLC (1:19-cv-23778) Verbena Products LLC v. Suavecito, Inc. (1:19-cv-24001) Verbena Products LLC v. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc. (1:19-cv-23616) SZS Solutions, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (0:17-cv-61942) (settled)
otakucode 7y ago
Look into the case where a Christian film company fraudulently claimed a tons of videos on The Bible Reloaded YouTube channel. They went to court. They 'won'. Kinda. They ended up settling, but their case was as iron-clad and perfect as anyone could dream. They didn't include a single frame of the movie they were talking about in their video, didn't include a single nanosecond of audio from the film, but the company still filed a claim. But when they went into court, the company blamed the actual employee who filed the claims and for some reason the court just decided that the company can't be held responsible for the actions their employee took while doing the job they were hired to do. I would expect the same thing to happen in any similar case. They just throw the one person under the bus and move on.

kristofferR 7y ago

There is actually something creators can do about it. If you add your own copyrighted song to ContentID and add the song to your video, you can copyright claim your own video and prevent others from abusing ContentID to earn money on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieErnZAN5Eo